High Quality vs. Normal Quality Reencode

[johnnykazz4l]

I only have a Pentium 4 Dell XPS Gen 4 that I am using to copy blu-rays. I have been using the (Normal Quality / Fast encoding) option to re-encode, mainly because of my hardware but also because I barely ever have to re-encode. I usually find ways to get around such as removing HD audio or just taking out the end credits or something. My question is, how much better of quality will I get by waiting the 6 hour encode time for High Quality as opposed to the 3 hour encode time for Normal Quality? Will it be substantially noticeable, or just a slight improvement??

Thanks.

[Bendit]

I'd like to know also! That question was asked before, and their answer was to try with both (burn 2 disks) and watch it on your system to see if there is a difference. I don't like that answer either. Takes a long time to reencode full detail.

[W&B]

Easy answer would be High Quality is of course better than standard, why do you think they call it High Quality?
The truth is it's a subjective question with way to many variables, my LCD TV may be better or worse than yours...my stand alone player may be better or worse than yours, the media I use may be better or worse than yours and so on and so on (even your vision will apply).

This is something you have to test for yourself and in the end figure out what is good enough for you.

[Bendit]

The truth is not subjective. At the code level, higher quality produces a better replica. Without even talking about LCD TVs, how much better is the high-qual copy? Know what I mean? There have been no technical details posted about this feature. Or is there?

[Complication]

The specific details of what is and is not done during "high quality" mode would be a trade secret and is unlikely to be shared openly.

The subjective part is whether (1) you could notice the difference in quality between the two modes and (2) whether the difference in quality was worth the extra encoding time.

[johnnykazz4l]

I'd like to know also! That question was asked before, and their answer was to try with both (burn 2 disks) and watch it on your system to see if there is a difference. I don't like that answer either. Takes a long time to reencode full detail.

Well, I'm glad you want to know and I'm not the only one. I was asking for an average bit-rate difference (ex. about 1000kbps more, 2000 more, etc) so I can decide whether or not I really NEED the extra kbps. I have a limit of how much I would be willing to part with

[johnnykazz4l]

Easy answer would be High Quality is of course better than standard, why do you think they call it High Quality?
The truth is it's a subjective question with way to many variables, my LCD TV may be better or worse than yours...my stand alone player may be better or worse than yours, the media I use may be better or worse than yours and so on and so on (even your vision will apply).

This is something you have to test for yourself and in the end figure out what is good enough for you.

Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from with the variables, I was just interested in a number figure of KBPS perhaps, but I guess this could be a variable depending on media and quality of system hardware as well?

EDIT: Again, the computer I use to copy blu-rays on is a Dell XPS Gen 4 from probably about 2005. The system stats at the time were incredible (Pentium 4, 2GB RAM, Nvidia 6700) but nowadays just aren't up to par with current systems. My main computer is a Macbook, but unfortunately I s*** the bed there because I never planned on copying blu-rays, and the best software (DVDFab, of course!) is not available for Mac OS. So my crappy XPS Gen 4 takes about 6-8 hours to re-encode, but like I said I can get around encoding usually just not on some films.

[Complication]

Bitrate is determined by the available space. High quality is controlling the amount of effort to squeeze as much out of the available bandwidth. If you have a very high power PC or lots of time then High Quality mode may be worth it to you. However, many if not most people will not be able to tell the difference.

[Bendit]

Thanks for the info. I like how you explained about the bandwidth, makes sense.

Unfortunately, everybody is saying the same thing.

Ok, please post here if you TRIED BOTH STANDARD and HIGH QUAL and SAW a difference!

That's what we want to know, we'll take anything at this point.

Thanks!

[johnnykazz4l]

Thanks for the info. I like how you explained about the bandwidth, makes sense.

Unfortunately, everybody is saying the same thing.

Ok, please post here if you TRIED BOTH STANDARD and HIGH QUAL and SAW a difference!

That's what we want to know, we'll take anything at this point.

Thanks!

I tried both last night with Fight Club blu-ray. There was a three hour encode difference. I saw absolutely no difference in film quality, but I will try a newer clearer movie as soon as I get the chance. I'd imagine it would be difficult to see a difference in a film like Fight Club due to David Fincher's dirty and gritty directing of that film. There is lots of beautiful grain on the original so.

[Bendit]

Thanks for testing johnnykazz4 !

actually, it might be the opposite. Contrasting, dark scenes is how I measure the quality of films in my projection room.

Hey, thanks for trying this. It says something that you did not see a difference!